tv Anderson Cooper 360 CNN January 9, 2018 10:00pm-11:00pm PST
wildlife rescue said he'd keep him. >> and his name is flushy. >> flushy, yeah. i think the point is there's always hope for the most cold blooded among us. >> this week looks much better, buddy. it will be in the 60s. you'll be out in the sun, suntanning, and enjoying life. >> as shelly asked, if winter comes, can spring be far behind? and as bill haley and the comets once said, see you later, alligator on "the ridiculist." that's it for us. thanks for watching "ac 360." time to hand it over to andrew cuomo. andrew cuomo "primetime" starts now. >> thank you, anderson. i'm andrew cuomo. we have the perfect guest to talk about the big steve bannon news, anthony scaramucci is here. welcome to "primetime". >> all right. thank you for joining us for this cnn special program. we're going to take the next few weeks at the start of the year to see where things stand on the
important issues. and, boy, did we pick the right day to start. anthony scaramucci is here. we're going to be one-on-one in just a few minutes on a day where it seems everything has changed. steve bannon out at breitbart, and with word of that, it was like a spell was broken. president trump called for comprehensive immigration reform and a bill of love for d.r.e.a.m.ers. he held a meeting that was televised with both sides of the aisle. no hate speak, no faux populism. in other words, no bannon. this news is going to send both sides into a tizzy, but forget about the spin. what matters is how we got here and how things may change. facts first. let's remember why trump cozied up to bannon in the first place. mid august, 2016, trump picks bannon to be his campaign chairman, why? why did he pick him to be chairman? because bannon hated the gop establishment that was going
after trump, encouraged trump to be his most bombastic, which trump liked, and he had a feel for a group of americans that trump wanted to connect with, now known as the base. so trump wins. that skinny margin reinforces how important the base was and trump elevates bannon to chief strategist with broad powers. but he also empowered a truly toxic mentality. you remember when bannon said darkness is good. dick cheney, darth vader, satan, that's power. in february, "time" magazine dubbed bannon the great manipulator, the story asking is steve bannon the second most powerful man in the world? that, my friends, was the beginning of the end. trump is not one to share the spotlight. by april president trump referred to bannon simply as, quote, a guy who works for me. in july our big guest tonight,
anthony scaramucci was hired as white house communications director. bannon tried to block him. he failed. if there was any question about anthony's thoughts on bannon, here's a taste. >> i'm not steve bannon. i'm not try to suck my own [ bleep ]. i'm not trying to build my own brand or [ bleep ] on the strength of the president. i'm here to serve the country. >> fun new how he does the beeps with his voice. by august, bannon had become a cancer and was out at the white house. last month he backed roy moore's alabama senate run. he lost there too. last week, the final straw, excerpts from a bombshell book were released, bannon slamming the president's son, throwing around the word "treasonous," saying they're going to crack don junior like an egg on national tv. president trump renamed him sloppy steve. mega donor rebecca mercer cut off bannon's funding. today with the money gone, support thin, he is out at
breitbart. after last week, president trump had a singular message for all his supporters. it's bannon or me. make a choice. bannon messed with the bull, as they say, and he got the horns. joining us to discuss why this happened, why it took this long, what it means, anthony scaramucci, former white house communications director. appreciate you joining us. >> okay, can we start with some facts first? >> i just did. but go ahead. >> let's go over the prompters. i think it's important. i don't think he hired him because of what you said related to the base and expounding himself. i think he hired him because he was looking for a slight shift in direction in the strategy, and he had met with the mercer family at woody johnson's house. and i think he hired him because he was also getting kellyanne conway who he was very fond of and thought she did a wonderful job on tv, and the first woman campaign manager to win a republican party presidency. probably the first woman campaign manager to do that, period.
those are a little bit different than what you said. the second piece i would slightly disagree with is that the president had his own voice with what you're describing as the base. the president was already in touch with that base. that base already helped him win against 17 other candidates in the republican primary. one of the issues there is some of the self-importance that was involved. look, i didn't describe it appropriately, but i witnessed some of that self-importance that was involved was detaching himself from the president and from his message. so just a little bit of a clarification. >> very little, actually. it's more of a distinction without a difference. >> i think it's important. i'll tell you why i think it's important. if your viewers want to know this, if they want to know how the president operates and thinks, he really did want some level of collegiality? >> then why did he bring in somebody like steve bannon? >> because he was rewarding him and someone like reince priebus. he was trying to put a team together and also offer some level of reward.
he was also throwing an olive branch to steve after steve departed from the white house, he sent a very nice tweet about him. >> but everything changed, right? you get sideways with the president and you get the worst. but let's not get ahead of ourselves. the president says he always hires the best people. how do you explain him having steve bannon there? >> i would say that steve had a voice. steve was a good writer. the biggest problem steve had in my opinion, and i said it. didn't say it perfectly, but he was more focused on steve. i think that's where he diversed from the president. he's not a team player. you can't say steve's not a smart guy or a good writer. you can't say that after andrew breitbart's death he didn't help raise the profile of breitbart, not a super profitable place, but certainly had a very high profile in the last election. so i want to be fair to him, but i also want to be accurate. because one of the things that i did a reasonably good job starting two companies from scratch, selling them both, is evaluating talent.
so one thing you can't have, you can't have -- >> you think steve bannon was a good hire? >> i don't. i obviously said as much. i think he was a bad hire not because wasn't talented or smart and quote/unquote strategic, he just didn't want to play inside the sandbox with the other people. he was splitting people between nationalism and globalism and to really understand the president, there's a nuance to him there as well. he is a globalist by nature. he wants to be part of the world order. >> that's not what bannon wanted, though. >> not what bannon wanted, but he's for peace and global prosperity. he wants to get along with our allies and he wants to put a hurt on our adversaries. >> do you understand why it created such confusion, that he brought in someone like steve bannon who saw those things as an anathema to his form of populi populism? >> i can't speak for the president. but i think what the president was trying to do was there was a sleeve of the president's agenda which is an america first agenda. it's for the middle class families, for what the president called the forgotten man or
woman. it's for lower middle class standards rising, wages rising. there's a sleeve of the president's personality for that but there's also a sleeve of the president's personality that someone like general kelly and general mcmaster. >> but imagine if there had been no bannon. to your own theory that trump had already figured it out in the primary so he didn't need bannon for a connection to the base. i disagree with that. but even if that were true, imagine if there had been no steve bannon, where do you think the president would be today? >> let me push back for one minute. you disagree with that because why? >> i think bannon's sell to the president that i understand these people, they come to me through breitbart, i've been working with them and selling things to them, message wise i need me. he was vulnerable, unsure of his team around him. bannon gave him a confidence. brought him in, he won, he brought him closer? >> i'm going to disagree with that because i was there. i don't think the president saw it that way. that could be your analysis. and maybe a historian will write
it that way. but i was there. i didn't see it that way. the way i saw it is he was looking to freshen up the team. he was looking to make a transition into going into the last part of the election. after he met with the mercer family, he got comfortable with steve. he had known steve for a while. he certainly loved kellyanne. he brought him in to bolster the team. >> i get that. but you don't just pick somebody like steve bannon and couple him with kellyanne conway. they couldn't be more different when they come to being political animals, okay. one is a minted professional who knows how to run campaigns. the other one is a propagandist who gives a platform to the alt-right and sells a lot of negative. what did you think was going to happen? >> you don't have to convince me about the differences and the professional qualities that kellyanne conway has versus steve. >> you put them together. that's why i did. >> i put them together because they were recommended at the same time by bob and rebecca. but hold on. it's important that people know how we got here.
now they do. thank you for that. >> okay. >> how do you feel about bannon being out at breitbart? >> you know, i don't feel good or bad about it, but i sort of predicted it. >> you don't feel any sense of satisfaction? >> i feel -- i feel a sense of relief for the president that he can now put this distraction besides him. he doesn't have to deal with it anymore, and he can focus on what he knows his gut extinction are. to serve the american people. do more of what he did today, which is to bring people together. the american people want a symphony coming out of the president, they want him to be the conductor. they want him to weld the two sides together, find the common ground, and push forward on the daca agenda, push forward on health care reform package, push forward on a restructuring of the global order that eliminates terrorism and all these other things. >> i hear you. i get it, i get it. >> to me, when you're in business -- look, i've been in politics officially for a short
period of time, but remember, i was with the president for 18 months, and i was on his executive transition team. pretty good idea what's going on. >> but the point is this, we see what the president does on a minute by minute basis. certainly he's not in kumbaya mode. might that change now? maybe. it seems like the spell was broken with the firie at breitbart. but i got to tell you, i'm not buying this. >> i take issue with that too. >> hold on. take issue with less things for a moment. you have somebody who only talked about immigration in terms of keeping people out, very anti-immigrant. then all of a sudden today he has this meeting. he says i'll sign whatever you can pass. i want a bill of love for the d.r.e.a.m.ers. we need to work together. the wall could mean lots of different things after he insisted that that was not what he meant. he was never afford any type of mitigation of the wall. whether it's the right move or not, principles matter. he dwushed himself from the field by saying when i say wall, i mean a big new wall of china across the southern border. these guys don't. he got points for that. now he is backing off it.
it might be the right move, but now he's got to own it. >> let's talk as americans, not as partisans. i think the silent majority in united states stands for an end of the political divisiveness in washington. the silent majority i think stands for let's knit together a proposal. the great ronald reagan once said i'm going for 80%, the way the constitution was designed and the checks and the balances and the system are designed. i'm not going to get 100%. one of the easts have with steve, he was going for 115%. it was his way or the highway. >> the president started a culture war and the president brought him as close as he could. luck smiled on hmm and he wound up getting separated from him. >> the president has great instincts. >> how do you have great instincts? steve bannon as close to him as he did. >> like i said he was rewarding him. >> whatever. he was rewarding the long person by all objective criteria. >> i have to say this to you.
you don't want the give the president credit for a lot of things. >> why would i give the president credit for bringing steve bannon in close to the seat of power? you tell me anthony scaramucci who is no friend of steve bannon, why was he a good choice to have with a lot of power? >> we're now looking at this with hindsight saying it was bad choice. the president would now say it was bad choice. but here is the hallmark of a great president and a great executive. when you've made a bad choice and you have mad the decision to get rid of a person who has been a bad choice, you remove the person from the situation. so he did that. he said it to me a couple of mornings ago. i don't see it that way. there were a couple of bad actors inside the administration that were leebing on the president. they were serving themselves. >> more proof that he doesn't have the best people around him. >> i don't agree with that. he has a very sound -- >> he has the best people around him, why does he keep shedding people, like fleas off a dog. >> have you run a company
before? >> no. >> let me tell you how it works when you run a company. whether you like it or not -- >> it's not a company. >> okay. it's an organization. you run a political organization like that -- you're missing my point. you don't want to let me make my point. >> i have to have competing points. >> i've been the ceo of two startup companies. >> what did you learn when you went to washington, d.c.? a lot, right? >> i learned there are treacherous people. >> different set of rules. >> i learned they're very dishonest people. they're different. they're different. people on wall street are more in your face. they tell you exactly how they feel. you may not like what they're saying to you, but they tell you exactly how they feel. >> the point is there are different sets of rules. >> in washington, they wave to you and try to stab you in the back. that's why the american people dislike them. the american people see the people in washington for what they are. and that's why the president became the president. >> and now the challenge of leadership is to make it better. and with bannon around he was on
a different course. we'll see what will happen now. >> he is making it better you. guys don't like the fact -- >> that's not fair. first night of the show, don't be unfair. >> i'm not going to be unfair. >> why would we not like unity? >> you want to go back to rhetoric that was campaign-oriented. >> right. >> rhetoric that could have been driven by steve bannon. >> right. >> you don't want to go to the practical reality of being president and seeing a guy today for 45 minutes in an actual bipartisan discourse looking to get a deal done. and when he talks about love, well you know about the guy? whether you like it or not, he's -- >> why do you keep saying that? >> it's a compassionate guy. >> there's no we. there's only me. you're talking to me. when he says those things, why criticize him for saying ugly things. it's not that i don't like he when he says good things. >> do you want to praise him for that? >> i will. he wants a bill of love. >> i think if he does something that helps the dreamers, because
supposedly there is consensus that these are not the people to villai villainize, even if you want to go on a campaign of getting people out of the country, this is not where to start. so if he is to construct some type of compromise. >> so take him at his word. >> we will see. as i said, the spell was broken. he was so different today. there is a fundamental distinction that you're ignoring. wait a minute. he was saying totally different things. bannon is out. and now whether coincidence or not, he is saying very different things. you're saying it's because he wants to get a deal done. >> he had the democratic leadership cut a deal on the budget to raise the ceiling. he met with democratic leadership early on -- >> this is different. >> daca. >> this is different. >> it is different and it should be refreshing. the fact he's going to davos should be refreshing. >> hang on a second. one step at a time. there's a difference between a position and a principle, okay? the wall was a principle. i want people out. we are not a nation because we don't have borders which, of
course was always untrue. it was always untrue we didn't have a border and it was untrue that the wall was a silver bullet. in fact, there's decent reporting to suggest that bannon and then-candidate trump knew that but they knew it was a salable item to a base that is still waiting for that wall. however -- >> we see it differently. >> okay, fine. but now he walks into this room to make a deal, as you say, and that changes. something that he said was irrevocable and unchangeable. when they say metaphor for wall, some sensors, some fence, whatever the experts we say, not me. i'm different from them. and people believed him. now you're saying well, now he wants to make deal. no. principle stays. positions can change. so if he has found new religion. >> keep talking. you're going to hopefully give me a chance at rebuttal. >> you are a lot of things. quiet is not one of them.
>> neither are you. >> that's my job. today he goes in there and you bring me something, i'll sign it. very different. that's good because he is trying to make a deal. >> scott adams brought up in win bigley, a very funny book and worth reading that people in our society have different realities. we both saw the same thing. i watched a full 45 minutes. i saw something totally different than what you saw. i saw a guy with principle. we're going to put a wall up to protect our society. let me just finish, legitimate and legal immigration. milton freeman once said if you don't have a strong border, there is an economic incentive for people to move across the border into your welfare state. the united states thankfully does have a welfare position and provides a safety net for indigent people. i believe we should have that. paul ryan believes that. so does the president. but you then have to protect the
people living inside the united states legally so you can protect the tax system, you can protect the services and the benefits. one of the things that the president believes, and he said and he referenced it today that border officials, dhs people believe that there has to be a wall in certain areas. >> that's what's always been said. he is new to this. that's always been the position of border experts. that's all i'm saying. >> he is not new to it. >> when john kennedy was telling people in 1960 that there was a missile gap, and he campaigned hard on a missile gap. and ike was upset with him over it. and when he got to the office and he was in "the situation room" and he saw the missiles and he realized that we were in a missile surplus, not a missile gap. >> so he was wrong. is that something to be rewarded? >> no, you're missing the point. it's not that he is wrong. when you're coming as a candidate and you have less information than you do as a president, smart people, people that are geniuses, smart people,
they change their position and they alter themselves. and so every politician has to do that. >> that is wrong. >> hold on a second. president obama -- i'm with him on this. i'm pro-gay marriage, as you know. i'm for all of the social progressive things. >> that's not about facts. >> he was against gay marriage. >> he changed his mind, he said he grew in his perspective. that's not about how many missiles you have or whether or not a wall is what's needed by experts. >> you don't want to give the president any credit. >> it's not true. i just wanted to be honest about how we arrived at this new position. >> the president has new information. >> it's not a good analogy. that you offer up for it. let me ask you something else while i have you. two things. two quick things. >> your viewers are listening and thinking that's a pretty good analogy. >> it's a pretty good conversation and i appreciate you for it. do you think daca deserves a clean bill? nothing attached to it? do that, get it done and then move on to these other things? >> good question. my initial knee jerk reaction is, yes.
>> is that sharing the president's thoughts or your own? >> i haven't talked to the president about it. so i can't speak for president. but i know how washington works. they're going to nail him with other stuff because that's how they work. >> but they is the people in this one. they is his people. the democrats want a clean bill on daca. we heard it today from feinstein. >> if we're having the spirit of honest here, we know the way the system works is failing the american people. i would indict both sides for that. we would like a clean bill. you're not going to get a clean bill because of the way the rules work. but the good news about president trump, and this is the hope for the american people, he finally got somebody in there that's going to disrupt the rules. and maybe we'll change the rules for the better to serve the american people as opposed to these nonsensical politicians and their lobbyists and special interests. and that you've got to give the president credit for. >> well, let's see what he does. if it's a bill of love, as he promised today, the latest promise, it should be by
definition a clean bill. >> i hope it will be. >> we'll see. if it's a bill of love, we'll see. it's what he says, what he does. >> on television, you criticize. >> i'm all about love. we need more of it. can't have enough of it. >> in my press conference, i said i love the guy three or four times. >> i'm using it in a different way than you did. >> first day. you go ahead. >> the national anthem. the president says you should respect it. you should stand for it. you should honor it. let me play you a piece of tape. ♪ by the dawn's early light, what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming ♪ >> so the president's -- he is there for the national anthem. he is at the big alabama/georgia game. the national anthem is before. do you think that the president of the united states knows all the words to the national anthem? >> 100%.
>> 100%? >> you're trying the show it looked like he wasn't saying the words of something like that. >> here is my real question. i want to get that out of the way. you say he knows the words? >> i know a lot of the maroon 5 songs. i don't know all of them. >> i don't know why you want to admit that. >> if you told me right now at 9:22 say every word in the national anthem, probably going to get a few of them wrong. >> oh, come on. let me ask you this, though. >> but i'd like to see you sing the national anthem right here. >> another day. another day. >> if you sing the national anthem right now, i'll mouth it alongside of you. >> and then you'll be ready to be president. should the president sing the national anthem if he wants to be respected as profoundly as he says he does? >> again, this is me. >> just a question. >> but it's not a question that i feel comfortable answering because you want me to get inside the mind of the president. >> i'm just saying in general. the president of the united states, if the anthem matters so much. >> my attitude on the anthem is i have an unconditional love for
the country. everybody that has a social justice issue with the country have an unconditional love for the country, walk walter reed hospital, stand for the anthem. let's address the social justice issues, whatever the grievances may be, in another form. don't hit the flag that would be my personal bias on the situation. that's my personal opinion. >> here is the beautiful thing, anthony scaramucci. you are entitled. >> i've seen people that have no legs stand for the flag. and that's good for me. and i will stand alongside of them all day and night. and i tell my friends that have a peace and social justice issue with the united states, let's drop it with the flag. this has been a phenomenal experiment, the 240 years. we are progressing. we are making the place better. let's stand for the flag. >> i take your opinion. the beautiful thing is you can have your opinion. >> yeah. >> and other people can have a different opinion and they shouldn't be attacked either. >> but you know the difference? my opinion is right, and yours is wrong. >> anthony scaramucci, thank you
for being here. i pleasure to have you. i bet you have a lot to say than interview. you want to know what the good news is? the show is more interactive than most. tweet me your thoughts, use the #cuomoprimetime. we're going to read some of your pearls of wisdom at the end. up next, from build the wall to where is the love? we now know where the two sides stand on daca and hundreds of thousands of dreamers. who should win the great debate? jennifer grant home, rick santorum, next. no artificial flavors, no artificial preservatives in any of the food we sell. we believe in real food. whole foods market.
but why? why don't we actually do any work? why do you only own one suit? it's just the way it is, underdeveloped office character. you're right. thanks, bill. no, you're bill. i'm tom. you know what? no one cares. ( ♪ ) with 33 individual vertebrae and 640 muscles in the human body, no two of us are alike. life made more effortless through adaptability. the perfect position seat in the lincoln continental. ( ♪ )
new tonight, president trump just tweeting about his border wall saying, it must be a part of any daca deal. now that was unclear in that big tv extravaganza that we all saw today. and we don't really know what a wall is anymore. why do i say that? earlier today the fate of 800,000 d.r.e.a.m.ers was open
the baited during this extraordinary and lengthy meeting between lawmakers and the president of the united states. all on tv, and there were some shockers. top of the list is what president trump said. he borrowed ideas from both jeb and president george w. bush, ideas he used to attack. he asked for comprehensive immigration reform. that was president bush's term, and said the d.r.e.a.m.ers need a bill of love. >> should be a bipartisan bill. should be a bill of love. if we do this properly, daca, you're not so far away from comprehensive immigration reform. and if you want to take it that further step, i'll take the heat. i don't care. we'll do daca and we can start comprehensive immigration reform the following afternoon, okay? we'll take an hour off and we'll start. >> so he was talking the talk, but was he ready to walk the walk? the bill of love was a play on what jeb bush said in a debate where trump attacked him. jeb bush had said these families who bring their kids with them,
that's an act of love when they bring them here, it's not a crime. then candidate trump mocked him. now changed his tune. really, it's about the wall, though. you remember what this promise was, as solid as the wall he was promising itself, uncompromised, not a metaphor for anything. take a listen. >> we are going to build a great border wall. >> we will build a great, great wall. >> we're going to build a wall. don't worry about it. [ cheers ] >> i promise, we will build the wall. >> it's not going to be a little wall. it's going to be a big, beautiful wall. >> it's going to be a very tall, strong, powerful wall. >> who's going to pay for the wall? >> mexico. >> well, the mexico thing, that's gone. we didn't hear a whisper than today. in fact, we haven't heard anything about that for months. but the wall itself is now a great big beautiful question mark. it was discussed today in terms of being exactly what everyone has said it should be, a metaphor for different types of
security, big, beautiful wall in some places, fences in others, electronic sensors where needed. what the experts, border security that's what they said they wanted all along. no. but now he said he is good with whatever they come up with, and even gave the democrats what they say is paramount, a stand-alone daca deal. for moment anyway. take a look. >> what about a clean daca bill now with the commitment that we go into a comprehensive immigration reform procedure like we did back when kennedy was here. it was really a major, major effort. and it was a great disappointment that it went nowhere. >> i remember that. i have no -- i think that's basically what dick is saying. we're going to come out with daca. we're going to do daca. and then we can start immediately on the phase two, which would be comprehensive. >> but then came the political reality. remember, there's been all this talk about how both sides want
to save the d.r.e.a.m.ers. the gop was there to do business as well and deliver for people whose priority is keeping people out. listen what happened next. >> you need to be clear, though. i think what senator feinstein is asking here, when we talk about just daca, we don't want to be back here two years later. you have to have security as the secretary would tell you. >> all right. so no clean daca bill, that's what you are hearing from the republicans. democrats, republicans, still clearly at odds. mr. trump had one surprising suggestion near the end to make it easier to pass bipartisan legislation, the return, oink, oink, of pork. >> maybe all of you should start thinking about going back to a form of ear marks because this system -- this system -- no. well, you should do it. i see lindsey nodding happily. yes. >> they're all laughing about spending your money to get
things done they should do otherwise. but now we have what's teed up as a great debate. let's bring in senior political commentator, former michigan governor jennifer granholm, democrat, of course. and former senator from pennsylvania, rick santorum, republican, of course. great to have you both with us. thank you for joining us on this first night. so rick, we'll start with you. here's the proposition. if you care about the d.r.e.a.m.ers, do daca in a clean bill. defend against. >> well, first defend against it, first, i don't support doing daca, period. so i would say that the concern that republicans have with doing daca is that in a few years we'll end up having to do another daca and then a few years, another daca. if we don't have some sort of enforcement at the border, some sort of laws in place to make sure that we aren't going to
have this immigration problem again, then there is's no point in creating any kind of amnesty or relief for people who are here now. that's what republicans have been saying. that's what donald trump has been saying for quite some time. so the idea of doing a clean daca bill is an absolute nonstarter. i don't think a single republican, because we're just creating another problem down the road. >> jennifer granholm but the republicans say they care. and the president said he wants a bill of love. how do you love the d.r.e.a.m.ers if you don't help them in a clean bill? >> yeah, and how do you love the d.r.e.a.m.ers when you were the one to undo the deal in the first place, yes. so you should give this as part of the only bill that is teed up at the moment to be able to arrive in time to prevent the daca young people from being exposed. march 15th is the deadline. there's no other bill that is teed up to be able to approved in time to save them. so do it. do it as part of this spending bill, part of the government funding bill, and then do what the president said, go right into comprehensive reform.
rick santorum, senator santorum is sitting there saying that you have to have more than just this clean bill. good. let's talk about comprehensive immigration reform and put it on the table what the gang of eight did back in 2013. >> rick, what's your response? >> let's talk about what the president suggested. the three things he suggested in a reform bill that he would sign is, number one, ending the visa lottery. that was in the gang of eight proposal which was a bipartisan proposal. >> it was. >> democrats support ending the visa lottery. that's an easy one. number two, he says get rid of chain migration. and again, a lot of democrats are very sympathetic to the idea that your uncles and relations and the fact that the vast majority of people coming to this country -- >> that was in the gang of eight bill too. >> again, two of the three things. when you say it's teed up, those two things the president wants
that republicans support and some democrats do too are teed up also. the one thing that is, quote, controversial, is the wall. but as you heard from the president, he's flexible that the wall can be, yes, some wall and some other things in addition to the wall. we're talking about border enforcement here. >> hold on a second. >> and that's a very essential part of this proposal. >> i get you about the interest in enforcement. i don't know who isn't against a safe border to be honest with you. >> well, we haven't been spending the money on it. we used to spend money on it. >> there's a lot of money spent on the border and they want to spend more, that's more. that's fine. they have to justify it to the voters. but you heard the president, now he's a little flexible. do we know that? i can't tell. that's why i asked it with a question mark when we were setting up. >> jennifer and i have had this discussion over and over that the president is not as dogmatic as, well, i would be if i were president of the united states. he's not driven by ideology. he wants results. it's very important. its very important that you look
at this. the three things the president asked for are the thee easiest things to get accomplished. >> the wall isn't easy. >> sure it is. democrats have voted for building walls in the past. >> he asked for daca, rick. he also asked for daca. he asked for daca. >> right. put all four of those things together. >> and he's also said comprehensive immigration reform. in today's meeting, honestly, within a span of 60 seconds he was going one way and the other. it's not clear at all, as chris is saying, where he really stands. he'll probably know once he watches "fox & friends" tomorrow morning where he really stands. plus ann coulter is on tv tonight totally trashing him. it's not clear where he comes down on this. i am thoroughly encouraged he was strong today. as were many republicans in that room, unlike you, rick, who are in favor of a solution for the dreamers. that is encouraging. and i hope the democrats keep their spine and say very clearly that we are going to stick by our guns and demand that the
daca fix be in this spending bill. >> you will only get a daca fix if you have enforcement and not just at the border but better enforcement. >> why? >> you can do that. >> we're not going to be in a situation as we were in the 1986 bill, the 1993 bill, whatever it was, amnesty was given to oh, we're going to do enforcement and we're going to give amnesty to everybody. what happened? amnesty was given to everybody. there was no additional enforcement. and as a result we have more and more people coming into this country illegally >> i know you throw this amnesty word out there because it's so scintillating for people on the far right. >> if you break the law and come into this country and continue to break the law -- >> they didn't come in by themselves. >> a whole host of other things. >> they didn't come in by themselves. >> i understand that. they're continuing to break the law by being here. that's amnesty. >> the reason why many others in your party are in favor of doing something is because this is a huge issue for you, for republicans.
if they really want to grow, if y'all want to grow, you better be inviting of people to come to the table. you better be living up to the ideals of america, which is a nation of immigrants other than the native americans. so it's a terrible strategy to insist that you pack this in with they think are unacceptable and not do the daca fix. fix the daca problem and then do a comprehensive immigration reform that has a path to citizenship. >> the paths laid out are acceptable. that's my point. the president has actually put something throughout that should be very acceptable to them. >> let's reframe it for people at home. by the way, bravo, this is a very good, well reasoned debate. happy to have you guys on. the idea of you need to do the enforcement things otherwise you're going to have this perpetual problem, why can't you deal with the fact that these people who technically did enter illegally, but thaw came in as children.
that's what jeb bush called the act of love, now the president mirroring it, it seems, in bill of love. so you take care of them. they're productive. they're representing the best of our values, and you shut that off. and you then put in the enforcement piece at the same time that you help them. why do you need to mix in a border wall and all these other provisions that have nothing to do with the circumstances with hundreds of thousands of lives in the balance? >> that's a great question, chris. the reason is if you say to young people all over the world, if you can get in here, then we're going to allow you to stay here at some point and we're not going to have any kind of measures to make sure that you don't come. that's why it's important to have enforcement in place. so we send the message that, yes, those folks who are here, we're going to give you a special circumstance and allow you to stay here, but we're going to put measures in place that we're not going to encourage more people to come
so -- because we're giving this benefit to those who are here already. >> i don't see the logic of having to do both at the same time. i'm out of time. jennifer granholm, rick santorum, come on -- >> great to be on, chris, good job. >> congratulations. >> jennifer, you are always disappointed at the end which means there's always room for more. you're always welcome bab. thanks for having both of you on the first night. it was good. thank you. we have new big names entering the political fray, and they could not be more different. on one side, you've got oprah winfrey. on the other side you have sheriff joe arpaio. chris cillizza says these names represent the sweetest dreams and the most horrid nightmares for the political parties. i agree. but he and i have opposite views on the winners and losers. who has the better point? he's got the better tie. next. with 33 individual vertebrae
in the lincoln continental. you won't see these folks they have businesses to run. they have passions to pursue. how do they avoid trips to the post office? stamps.com mail letters, ship packages, all the services of the post office right on your computer. get a 4 week trial, plus $100 in extras including postage and a digital scale. go to stamps.com/tv and never go to the post office again.
>> look, i disagree very much on her policies. is she a successful individual? absolutely. but in terms of where she stands on a number of positions, i would find a lot of problems with that? >> what positions? i'll leave the details to the side. let's get to the point with cnn politics editor at large, chris cillizza. mr. cillizza, in your opinion, oprah winfrey is hot and getting hotter. >> yes. >> i read that in a headline. but now you have joe arpaio. what does each mean to the political fray? >> okay, i'll be brief. oprah winfrey, i think, is democrats' platonic ideal of what you challenge donald trump with. they went traditional politician, hillary clinton didn't work. republicans ran a bunch of traditional politicians, didn't work. oprah winfrey is successful, wealthy, well-known, a celebrity, and in their view certainly more rational, more presidential than donald trump.
arpaio? he more than donald trump represents the id of the republican party, the base. protectionist, suspicious, buys into conspiracy theories. i'll remind people, joe arpaio still thinks barack obama was not born in the united states. so they both represent -- both are in the reactional orbit to donald trump. arpaio is trump on steroids. oprah is the democratic alternative if you believe that donald trump fundamentally altered politics in 2016 and running a governor or a senator or a house member won't work in 2020. >> smart, assertive, glass, matching tie. you can take that to twitter. i will flip it, though. >> okay. >> in fact, oprah winfrey could be the the biggest nightmare for democrats. >> why? >> because she checks a lot of the boxes that hillary clinton did as well. super elite, rarefied air, no
experience in this domain, which if nothing else we're living the lesson has a political cost right now. and big shot versus big shot, celebrity versus celebrity, maybe too obvious for the democrats. they want someone more home grown, more organic, that represents experience and get done. >> arpaio, conversely -- >> this is exactly what i'm interested? >> is exactly what put donald trump in the white house. people believe that atlas cultural war and the left is trying to break people away from what is right and what needs to remain true and he will put down real strength on the ground against those we fear here and now. >> let me rebut quickly on both. >> arpaio. there is a consistency for joe arpaio in arizona, without question. it is not big enough to win him a republican primary. it just isn't. >> even in arizona for senator?
>> i will remind people, arizona's republican party, you think jeff flake and john mccain. arpaio is more representative. the state legislature passed including some of the immigration laws, has passed some of the most conservative boundary pushing stuff you've seen. i just don't think that is a governing coalition even the republican primary, or winning coalition of republican primary. oprah. i think you are right. i think you see the democratic party, the people i talk to bifurcates. the theory of the case against trump is either you run someone who is a celebrity and has no record, or you run someone down the line bureaucrat tested ready. after nixon, you get carter. >> with an organic attachment to the same people that donald trump says wants to happen today. the people and families of the democratic party have been sweating off over the years. >> who is that? is that biden? is that elizabeth warren? >> i don't know. that wasn't part of this discussion. >> i don't know that either, but i do think that oprah represents sort of a fundamental challenge to what is the kind of candidate
that democrats should run against donald trump, even if it's not oprah, is it mark cuban? is it howard schultz of starbucks? or is it joe biden, bernie sanders, elizabeth warren, a more traditional my watch doesn't tell me that. >> your watch is blinding me. >> blinding you with science. >> you win the point. >> tomorrow night, joe arpaio is going to join us live. what does he think about what chris cillizza said? i'll give him his phone number. but first, i host, you tweet. i asked you to send in your thoughts. they've been pouring in. thank you for that. chris cuomo, that's the sign on twitter. the hashtag is #cuomoprimetime. social status is up next. we'll get your take. mom,
i have to tell you something. dad, one second i was driving and then the next... they just didn't stop and then... i'm really sorry. i wrecked the subaru. i wrecked it. you're ok. that's all that matters. (vo) a lifetime commitment to getting them home safely. love. it's what makes a subaru, a subaru.
[ laughs ] rodney. bowling. classic. can i help you? it's me. jamie. i'm not good with names. celeste! i trained you. we share a locker. -moose man! -yo. he gets two name your price tools. he gets two? i literally coined the phrase, "we give you coverage options based on your budget." -that's me. -jamie! -yeah. -you're back from italy. [ both smooch ] ciao bella.
book those who listen and respond. kudos, i'll take it. orlando sgn says why would you spend so much time with scaramucci who like all of trump surrogates doesn't answer any question? here's why. he speaks to the president on a regular basis. he was in the white house. he understands why he makes the decisions he makes as well as any. and when it comes to bannon, nobody got into it with bannon the way the much did. that's why we have him on. good observation. thank you. we work hard at that. the hostility and theatrically i know that it drives the tribalism that is infecting us so much right now on cable tv. we see so much of it at night. it doesn't get us anywhere.
you can disagree. you don't have to be disagreeable. all right, new details tonight about the infamous dossier alleging ties between president trump and russia. just hours ago more than 300 pages of closed door testimony were released. i read every single page. truth, what's in it, what it means coming up on "cnn tonight" with don lemon. we'll be right back. thanks for joining us. ancestry's dna test with its historical records... ...you could learn you're from ireland... ...donegal, ireland... ...and your ancestor was a fisherman. with blue eyes. just like you. begin your journey at ancestry.com
that's why feeling safe is priceless. with adt, you can feel safe with an adt starter kit professionally installed for only $49.00. call today, and install an adt starter kit that includes security panel, keypad, key fob, entry and motion sensors and for a limited time, get a camera included and installed at no additional cost. that's a $449.00 value, installed, for just $49.00.
we know life can be hectic. that's why, at xfinity, we've been working hard to simplify your experiences with us. now, with instant text and email updates, you'll always be up to date. you can easily add premium channels, so you don't miss your favorite show. and with just a single word, find all the answers you're looking for - because getting what you need should be simple, fast, and easy. download the xfinity my account app or go online today.
this is "cnn tonight." i'm don lemon. big news on the russia investigation to tell you about. president trump's personal attorney filing a lawsuit against buzzfeed for publishing the infamous trump dossier that included salacious details. that was a year ago. that as senator feinstein releases testimony of the man's firm who paid for the dossier when simpson testified that the former british spy who wrote the dossier went to the fbi because he believed, quote, there was a crime in progress. the president and republicans have spent months painting the dossier as a partisan political attack. but today these revelations are taking the